Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

I do not agree with that caricature of what is happening. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said at the weekend, and it has been repeated since, that we will reach 2.5% at a future fiscal event in the spring. The defence review is looking at what capabilities we need and we will then set that in the context of the 2.5% as we move forward. That sequencing is the proper way for us to go ahead. As it stands, no major projects are being disrupted as a result of the review.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The Minister’s answer was very clear, but at the weekend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury suggested that the Government were waiting for the SDR to report. However, one of the provisions of the terms of reference of the SDR is that there is a cap of 2.5%. Who is setting the agenda—the SDR or the Treasury—and should we be worried?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course the Treasury sets the context of the budget within which defence operates. The 2.5% commitment is cast-iron; the discussion is about the timeframe. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced at the weekend that the 2.5% will be announced at a future fiscal event in the spring. The sequencing is everything. If we decided to spend billions of pounds on a project now and the defence review suggested that that was not the best use of money to meet future threats, the noble Baroness would be asking me why we had spent the money before knowing what those threats were.

Defence Policy: Deterrence

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for enabling us this afternoon to talk about deterrence and core aspects of UK defence. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I keep meeting in this venue. We talked about the SDR two weeks ago, we were here again last week, and we are going to meet again in an hour to talk about defence expenditure—so I am not going to touch on defence expenditure, as did the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. I want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the new defence team, because one concern that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, implied was that the new Government might not be serious about deterrence or about defence.

On Tuesday evening, as a trustee of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, which runs the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, I was at a graduation dinner. Present were the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, because he had been part of the scheme, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, and Luke Pollard, Min AF. We have among our ministerial ranks people have previously taken the time from the Back Benches or from opposition to ask what defence is all about. It is important to realise that the Government are saying on defence and deterrence almost exactly the same as the previous Conservative Government and almost the same as the Liberal Democrats. We are now all committed to CASD and to the defence of the realm, and we understand the importance of deterrence.

On deterrence and preparedness, which we heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and given that I am winding for the Liberal Democrats, I remind noble Lords of the importance not just of defence commitments but of diplomacy and development, because if we establish the right relationships before we end up in a state where we need to prepare for war, we might make better use of the British budget. Deterrence is important, CASD matters, but so do our alliances, such as NATO and the bilateral relationships which this Government are seeking to build and foster. That is all incredibly important, yet, as we have heard from various noble Lords, the challenges we face in the 21st century are rather different.

In his incredibly important contribution, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, reminded us about a range of issues that we need to think about in nuclear policy and, more broadly, about discrimination and proportionality. He reminded us that our nuclear posture was initially determined in a period of balance: the Cold War, when mutually assured destruction meant that it was unlikely that any side would use a nuclear weapon. They had their deterrent function. In the current world, we face not just state-based threats but threats from non-state actors; not just conventional threats but cyber and hybrid threats. In respect of naval policy, we have the noble Lord, Lord West, repeatedly banging the drum for maritime. Who is banging the drum to deal with hybrid threats and cyber, and to ensure that we have a fully-fledged deterrent alongside our nuclear deterrent?

Defence Spending

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for giving us the opportunity to discuss defence expenditure. I fear that already, after not yet four months in office, the Minister may be getting a little tired of the record that says, “All the main parties committed to 2.5%, but when on earth are this Government going to deliver?”, because it is clear that whether the Government deliver the 2.5% of GDP is in the hands not so much of the Secretary of State for Defence or the Minister of State for Defence as of the Treasury.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, keeps suggesting that the Minister—or the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, when doing his review, where he is capped at 2.5%—should go to the Treasury and say, “Give us more money”. Yes, we need to be spending at least 2.5% of GDP, but I want to raise something that we have not really talked about: how we are spending that money. The aspiration is important, but when looking at defence procurement matters, we need to think about more than just what pennies we have in the sweetshop. I thought that was quite a good analogy, because you do not get many sweets for pennies now; you need pound coins and so on. Similarly, if we are looking at pennies for defence, we are not in the right quantum.

It is already clear that if we are going to backfill what we have given to Ukraine then we are looking at costs that are in billions rather than millions of pounds. There are real questions about how we are going to procure the kit that we need, for which there are already black holes, and to backfill the equipment which we have rightly given to Ukraine. So how we spend matters, how we procure matters and moving beyond the exquisite is important.

There are two or three other economic factors that matter. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have talked a lot about growth. In a growing economy, 2.3% of GDP being spent on defence, which is roughly what we have at the moment, would be of far greater interest than in an economy that is stagnant —and at the moment we appear to be in a stagnant economy. So the 2.5% matters, but so does the economic growth that would mean that we could increase defence in real terms. Inflation is currently low, but traditionally defence inflation runs much higher than RPI. The exchange rate also matters, and at the moment the dollar exchange rate is relatively good. All those factors are outside the influence of the MoD, but they all make a real difference to what we can deliver. Although I join other noble Lords in saying we need that timeline to understand when defence expenditure will increase in terms of GDP, it is vital that we see economic growth to be able to expand our defence budget.

I very much agree with the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that we should be putting a lot of the additional £2.9 billion into personnel, but one of the headlines in the Budget was how much is going on employers’ national insurance. Of the £2.9 billion, how much is the additional wage bill for the MoD arising from the increase in the employer’s national insurance contribution? It is sort of a cost on the Armed Forces but certainly not one that will benefit our service personnel—and we need that.

We need to find a pathway, but we also need to think about how best to deploy our limited resources to make sure that we are as capable as we desire to be. We have had the best Armed Forces in the world, and we should ensure that we continue to. I pay tribute to all our service personnel and veterans and their families.

Ukraine

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Friday 25th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. As a country, we have stood united to support Ukraine for almost three years. As the Secretary of State said in the other place just three days ago, we were then on day 973 since the illegal invasion of eastern Ukraine. Now, it is day 976.

It is often suggested that Ukraine’s war is our war. I suspect that most noble Lords across the Chamber will echo those sentiments today. I also suspect that one or two will suggest that we need to take a slightly different approach, but it is very important that all three main parties stand united in our support of Ukraine. I very much echo the Secretary of State’s remark that the Ukrainians are fighting to regain their sovereignty, but they are also fighting to protect the peace, democracy and security of all of us.

The context of today’s debate is a war that has been ongoing for nearly three years, but one that seems no longer to be hitting the headlines. We do not hear what is happening on a day-by-day basis, but the brave Ukrainians have continued to fight for their sovereignty, to defend their territory and to fight for freedom and democracy. We should pay tribute to them.

I associate these Benches with the tribute paid to Corporal Christopher Gill and the service he gave. May he rest in peace.

The diplomacy that has taken place over the past few months, and which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, discussed, has been vital. The work of NATO, the G7 Defence Ministers and the European Foreign Affairs Council is important, as is the sense that we stand together. We on these Benches very much welcome the decisions taken by the G7 to provide further financial support to Ukraine and to use the interest on the frozen Russian assets—which, I point out, was called for by my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed back in January, so he is particularly grateful. Obviously, those decisions are very important.

It is a particular relief to know that upwards of £2.25 billion is not coming out of the UK’s defence budget, so I do not have to ask the Minister where that money is coming from. However, I have a specific question about how Ukraine will be able to draw down that funding. Are we talking about cumulative interest that has already accrued, which Ukraine will be able to draw down as soon as the facility is in place?

Our defence support for Ukraine has been very clear. We recommit to that willingly, but in recent weeks and months the context has become ever more dangerous. We appear to be seeing an axis of authoritarian states, with Russia, North Korea, Iran and China working together in various ways. This week we saw the meeting of the BRICS in Kazan. Prime Minister Modi is in Kazan, representing India as part of the BRICS. As the leader of the largest Commonwealth state, he has chosen to be in Russia rather than Samoa, where the CHOGM is taking place. I suspect that President Putin was not unaware of the dates of the CHOGM when he decided that the BRICS meeting should be held virtually to coincide.

What assessment do His Majesty’s Government make of the decision of various Commonwealth leaders to be at the BRICS meeting rather than at the CHOGM? Could it be an opportunity for leaders such as India’s to exercise caution? One of the things that Steve Rosenberg said in an excellent report from the BRICS meeting yesterday, where he had been trying to hold President Putin to account, was that although there was a lot of economic agreement and so on among the BRICS leaders, there was a lot of opposition to the war. Do His Majesty’s Government think that this is also being put forward by Prime Minister Modi? Is there an opportunity for us to work with India to try to exercise some leverage indirectly? Russia stepping back from war would be in everybody’s interests.

Apart from the BRICS, we have the most unwelcome North Korea-Russia defence treaty and the prospect of Korean soldiers on European soil. The Korean War appeared to stop 70 years ago, but it was never formally concluded. There was never a peace agreement. Our international ally South Korea neighbours North Korea. We appear to be seeing a dangerous escalation. What assessment do His Majesty’s Government make of that? Where do we need to be giving additional support to Ukraine? We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government. We must stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. What more can and should we be doing?

Decommissioned Nuclear-Powered Submarines

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to ask about dismantling. As I said to my noble friend, we are seeking to speed up that process. On the new submarines, if he is referring to the Astute class submarines, seven were ordered, six are already in the water and one is now under construction in Barrow. If he means the successor to the Vanguard class, we expect the first to be in service in the early 2030s. We are making considerable progress, and I hope that answers his question.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness’s follow-up question pointed out, there is an accumulation of nuclear submarines that have been decommissioned but are still in Rosyth or Devonport. Are His Majesty’s Government sure that they are safe? Can the Minister commit to ensuring that freedom of information requests are responded to? Apparently, the MoD has not been responding to safety questions.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

On freedom of information requests, if the noble Baroness has any examples that she would like me to look into, she only has to ask and I will certainly do so. Freedom of information requests should be responded to within the timeframe laid down, so I will look at that. As I said, we are looking to accelerate the dismantling programme. I am confident that the processes that we are seeking to put in place will speed that up and that they are safe.

Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2024

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords—oh, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith; I am so eager.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Yes, there is obviously a certain choreography to this: the smaller opposition Front Bench is allowed to go first.

This time last year—or not quite this time last year, but when we renewed our commitment to the Armed Forces in 2023—we again had a rather small group of Peers speak in the debate. I note this tendency, despite the fact that, in 1688, the Bill of Rights found it so important that Parliament consented to having our Armed Forces that we had to give our consent. Now, we tend to have a very small number of parliamentarians discussing this vital matter and we are tucked away in Grand Committee. One noble Lord referred to this the other day, saying to me, “It’s a cupboard. Nobody takes any notice if we do things in Grand Committee”.

However, we clearly should take notice of the commitment to His Majesty’s Armed Forces that this renewal order gives and which all our Benches wish to support. Each year, we remind ourselves and others of the important role that His Majesty’s Armed Forces play in the security of the realm, which matters to each and every individual. The fact that so few individuals who are not service personnel, in their families or veterans, do not spend very long thinking or talking about His Majesty’s Armed Forces is perhaps a sign of how effective those forces are: we do not have to think daily about our security because the Armed Forces are doing that.

I note that the Explanatory Memorandum quotes the Bill of Rights, saying that

“raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against law”.

Clearly, the United Kingdom is not in a state of war with any other countries but I wonder how we should interpret the idea of being at peace, because there are so many parts of the world where His Majesty’s forces are deployed. When I looked back at the debate we had last year, it turned out to have been 16 months ago. For some reason, the previous Government felt the need to have the 2023 renewal on 15 June 2023. That was in a slightly different context.

We were at that time already supporting Ukraine but the context of the Middle East now, referred to by the Minister in his opening remarks, was somewhat different. It was before the horrific attacks on Israel of 7 October 2023. Since then, the United Kingdom has been involved in the support of Israel, in particular the support of Israel’s Iron Dome. Questions have been raised about our own defence and security, so I will reiterate one of the questions that I raised last year when the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was responding at the Dispatch Box. I said that His Majesty’s Armed Forces serve the United Kingdom incredibly well, but asked: do we serve our Armed Forces sufficiently well?

I welcome from these Benches the comments the Minister just made about the commitment to enshrine the Armed Forces covenant in law—I hope it will be made applicable to His Majesty’s Government, rather than just to certain councils and other bodies—and to having an Armed Forces commissioner. But does the Minister feel that we are doing sufficient to support our Armed Forces community, and should we be doing more in this time of heightened security concerns? I realise that his default position will probably be to say that we have a strategic defence review in the offing. Nevertheless, some commitment to ensuring that we have adequate resources for our Armed Forces in terms of their equipment and accommodation, but also service numbers, would be very welcome.

Finally, given that this continuation order is very much about service justice and that just last week we received the first report of the service complaints commissioner, do the Government feel that this new role and service justice are working well? In conclusion, we obviously wish to support the continuation of the Armed Forces and this draft Order in Council.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for my alacrity in wanting to contribute to this debate and for rudely seeking to barge in front of her.

I remember with pleasure having to move this annual order as a Minister. On the one hand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, it is entirely process in character, and that perhaps caused some perplexity about what exactly we should be saying. On the other, the effect of the order could not be more important in keeping our Armed Forces legally constituted and, as has been said, compliant with the fundamental provisions of the Bill of Rights 1688.

Relations with Europe

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

That this House takes note of the relations between the United Kingdom and Europe, particularly on issues of culture, diplomacy and security.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thought it would be helpful to the House to remind all Back-Bench speakers that the advisory time for this debate is four minutes. This means when the Clock has reached three minutes, noble Lords should start making their closing remarks, and at four minutes their time is up. I have asked the Government Whips to remind all noble Lords of this fact during the debate, if necessary. I thank all noble Lords in advance for their understanding, which will enable everyone to contribute to the debate fairly, in the allotted time.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, this debate in my name is on a slightly different topic from the one that we got so used to debating in the last few years: the UK’s relations with the EU. It is intended to be a more general, open and inclusive debate, hopefully working with the interests and concerns of everyone in your Lordships’ House and people of whatever opinion in the United Kingdom and to help us think much more broadly about how we interact with our neighbours in Europe.

I will start, slightly unusually, with a quotation:

“The UK is not just any third country … we share deep historical ties and aligned interests … a stronger partnership is not just beneficial but essential for our security, our economies and our people … cooperation through dialogue, debate and mutual understanding”


is what is needed. Those words come from Sandro Gozi, whom many noble Lords may not have heard of yet but he is the newly elected chair of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. When Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place have the next delegation with our European parliamentary colleagues, Sandro Gozi will chair those meetings from the EU side.

His words, spoken just last week, are indicative of a new flavour of thinking among our European neighbours. There was a period when discussions between the UK and our European neighbours—whether with the EU 27 as a bloc or bilaterally—had become very difficult. They were tense and scratchy on both sides, yet the importance of working with our European neighbours never disappeared. Whatever you think about the institutional relationship with the European Union, security co-operation with our European neighbours was and remains crucial. That has been especially so since February 2022 and the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine. Student and youth mobility are also extremely important to cultural co-operation.

I am delighted that this debate has garnered so much interest, and particularly that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, will be making her maiden speech. She was a formidable participant in the other place, particularly as chair of the Public Accounts Committee, so we very much look forward to her speech. I am reminded that, almost exactly a decade ago, I made my own maiden speech. In making a maiden speech, one is discouraged from doing or saying anything controversial. It took me a while to find a suitable debate. There was nothing on fly-fishing, painting, pottery or whatever—something that would have looked entirely uncontroversial. But there was one topic on which I thought, “I know something about this”. This is where I declare my interest for today: my day job is as professor of European politics at Cambridge, where one of my research projects is on relations with other European countries.

The topic on which the Whips encouraged me to speak—I was a little worried—was a debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It was a Motion to Take Note of the case for the UK’s membership of the European Union. The Whips at the time did not think that was too controversial, but many of the electorate clearly did not take note of the case that the noble Lord and I tried to make. Afterwards, in the cloakroom, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, came and said, “Good speech”. Obviously everyone in the Chamber makes laudatory remarks on a maiden speech—I have never heard any negative ones—but, outside the Chamber, it was possible that a passionate Brexiteer might have been a little negative. I said that I was trying not to be too controversial. He said, “No, you were just this side of controversial”.

I hope I have made it easy for everyone not to be too controversial in this debate, because our relations with Europe are necessary. They have to happen; the question is how we improve them. I hope that the rather general title of the debate offers the opportunity for an open discussion. At this stage in the Parliament, it is not intended to be hostile to His Majesty’s Government; in many ways, it is intended to try to empower His Majesty’s Government to carry on with some of the initial attempts that have been undertaken to work with our European partners, both at a European level and particularly through bilateral relations with some of our nearest neighbours, particularly Germany and Ireland so far.

The Lords Library has, as always, produced an extremely good briefing. We should have expected nothing less, but the briefing focuses very much on the last 100 days—the period since the new Labour Government were elected. My remarks will look a little to the past, as well as to the future, because some lessons can be learned about the previous “new Labour” Government. There is a lot of discussion about the new Starmer Government, but the new Labour Government offer some lessons, some of which are positive and some a little more salutary. I hope that, by the end of my contributions, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others will be thinking about some of the things they need to avoid.

In the run-up to the July election, now Foreign Secretary David Lammy was making very positive remarks about strengthening the UK’s security relationship with the EU. That, in many ways, is still an open question. Whereas the withdrawal agreement and the trade and co-operation agreement have been settled, there is still very much an opportunity for strengthening our security relations with the European Union at the institutional level of the UK and the EU. Already, as the Library Note reminds us, the Foreign Secretary had been talking about strengthening relations with Germany, Poland, Ireland and France. Those bilateral relations with our European partners are hugely important because, in many ways, they are the building blocks for strengthening and enhancing our relations with the wider European Union and wider Europe.

It is timely to be thinking about bilateral relations, because the new Government have clearly looked for a reset in our relations. We are also at a point in the European cycle where the European Parliament had its elections in early June and the new Commission is in the process of being appointed, so there is now an opportunity for four and a half years of deep and serious discussions about security and defence but also cultural co-operation.

It is also important for us to think at a wider level about bilateral relations. In particular, I welcome the Government’s agreement with Germany. Last month I was on an IPU visit to Berlin, where we had many very significant discussions with committees from right across the Bundestag. There was clearly a lot of interest in working with the United Kingdom on a bilateral basis on defence and cultural issues and understanding that it would be desirable to have much closer co-operation not just between Prime Minister and Chancellor but potentially between parliaments. I very much hope that the Minister might be able to say something about that relationship in his winding-up speech and to speak a little more generally about the extent to which the Government are thinking about strengthening inter-parliamentary relations, because a key aspect we need to think about in strengthening bilateral relations is people-to-people contacts at a variety of different levels. In 1997 and 1998, the new Labour Government understood that.

Here is my little bit of history: the new bilateralism was the term used by new Labour—I am not sure, but it may have been invented by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle—and was intended to be a step change in the UK’s relations with our European partners. It was on the basis of strengthening bilateral relations across parliaments: representatives of the Westminster Parliament would talk to their opposite numbers in other national capitals, Ministers would talk to their opposite numbers, and civil servants would strengthen relations. If one really wants strong bilateral relations, the perfect model is the Franco-German couple, which is deeply institutionalised and works even if the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France are not on the same page; the two countries look to work together. That heavily institutionalised relationship was sort of the model for the step change that the UK undertook in the first Blair Government, and it was initially very well received by our European partners.

Thanks to an underspend by the FCO, as it was then, I had some funding for a project at Chatham House looking at the UK’s bilateral relations. I interviewed colleagues in several European capitals, where there was an almost unanimous sense that “The UK understands Europe and how to work with us”—it was very positive. Just a few years later by 2006-07, if one went to European capitals, even in central and eastern Europe where previously they had said, “The UK is fantastic. It’s advocating for us to join the European Union—it’s a real supporter”, the sense was, “You can’t really trust the United Kingdom. It doesn’t understand reciprocity”. The term that had been used for the bilateral relations in the first Blair Government was promiscuous bilateralism—that you picked up a bilateral partner, you worked with them when you wanted something, and when you had what you wanted you did not keep that relationship going. Within a decade there was some disillusion; a sense that the UK maybe did not understand how to work with our European partners and did not understand reciprocity.

Clearly our bilateral relations are now outside the European Union, but the importance of that lesson remains. Therefore, could the Minister reassure the House in his response that, in the new relations we are seeking to build with Germany, France and Ireland, the Government understand the importance not just of the high-level agreements and the rhetoric at the start, but of ongoing relations? They are so important. By that I mean the person-to-person contact—that might be parliament to parliament or within political parties. The Liberal Democrats are still certainly part of the ALDE Party. I believe the Labour Party still has strong relations with the SPD. Whether its links are so strong with the PES I am not sure, but it would be useful to understand that.

Beyond that, will His Majesty’s Government think about how we can strengthen our relations more broadly—on defence, which I am sure several noble Lords will speak on having looked at the list of contributors, but also on culture and cultural co-operation? I know that my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter will speak on that. If the British Council has, as it does, priority countries in Europe—France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Germany—will the Government commit to ensuring that it is sufficiently resourced to be able to do its work effectively?

Finally, one of the key aspects of closer co-operation must surely be understanding among people, particularly the younger generations. Will the Government think again about youth mobility, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats asked the Prime Minister yesterday in the other place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the speakers’ list suggests that I can speak for a few moments but I am aware that I am detaining the House—and, as the Minister pointed out, it is late on a Thursday.

I think that the Minister has just summed it up for all of us. We wish his Government well and hope that relations with Europe can be strengthened as far as possible. We will continue to hold His Majesty’s Government to account. I heard little voices behind me saying ,“Not enough”, and ,“Too little, too slowly”, and so on, but I think that the Minister and other members of the Government Benches have heard our views. We very much hope that, in the coming months and years, we will be able to strengthen relations and that youth mobility in particular will be reinstated.

Motion agreed.

Combat Air Capability

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I certainly believe that the noble Lord is right to point out that, if we have aircraft carriers, we need aircraft to operate from them. I accept that. As far as the defence review is concerned, there is no doubt that we will look at the future capabilities we need, in respect of how those carriers are deployed and where they should be deployed, but also in respect of the necessary air combat power we need to meet the threats that the noble Lord will know well—as indeed will the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is indeed reassuring that His Majesty’s Government appear to be recommitting to GCAP but, like AUKUS, this agreement has been inherited from the previous Conservative Government. The allies, in this case, are Italy and Japan. Can the Minister tell us whether there is any scope for bringing in other partners and whether that would that help with resilience and interoperability with our NATO allies, for example?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As it stands, we are certainly sharing the costs with Italy and Japan, as the noble Baroness points out. Regarding other partners, we are considering that and discussions are taking place, without any firm commitment as it stands. Interoperability is key. She will know that Germany, France and Spain are also developing a sixth-generation fighter—SCAF—as is the United States. They are all part of NATO, so interoperability becomes essential.

Strategic Defence Review

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as other noble Lords have done, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for securing this debate and the Government Whips for allowing us government time to debate such an important topic. The fact that we have been relegated to a Grand Committee means that this has a slightly different feel from a debate on the Floor of the House but, as we found before the general election, it is clear that there is virtual unanimity across the Government and the Opposition on defence. On so many occasions, I and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, now the Minister, stood up and said how much we supported His Majesty’s Armed Forces, how vital the defence of the realm was and how we stood virtually shoulder to shoulder with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie —and, later, the noble Earl, Lord Minto.

In many ways, the debate this afternoon has demonstrated the degree to which noble and gallant Lords and those who, like me, are merely noble and not gallant because we do not have service experience—but nevertheless have an interest in defence and the security of the realm—think as one. Speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, there were very few contributions about which we would say, “I do not think we quite agree”, because so much that was said was about the security of the realm and the questions we all need to be thinking about. We may disagree on negotiating a settlement between Ukraine and Russia because we want to secure the Baltic states, which will clearly say that Ukraine needs to be secured.

However, in thinking about the wider security and defence review, rather than specific policies for particular areas, there were a number of questions that the Lib Dem defence spokespeople raised in their submission to the review, which I reread earlier today, with very much fit the themes that we have been talking about. One of them picks up on the contributions about values: what are our visions and values? What are the Government standing for? What do we stand for as a country? I would like the Minister to say something about—and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, to think about—how the SDR is very narrowly defined, and intentionally so. It is very much on defence rather than wider security questions. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, looking slightly worried, but there are very clearly points in the review that say it is specifically about defence, rather than some of the wider security questions that would bring in other departments. If I have misunderstood that, I would be very grateful to be corrected, but that is how I read it: that it is a narrower review than some reviews in recent years.

However, there is very little that says what His Majesty’s Government think about the UK’s place in the world. This has come up in various contributions this evening. What is the view of His Majesty’s Government about the role that the UK should be playing? We may be looking at the threats, but the threats to the United Kingdom are somewhat different from the threats globally. If we are thinking of ourselves as a regional player, what we want to do and the proposals we would make might look very different from a policy that still aspires to go global, as we had when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister. Is there a choice, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, suggested, between full spectrum and making narrower choices?

As so many noble Lords have raised, are we constrained by the budgetary package? There is a real concern here. In its campaign for government, the Labour Party talked about raising defence expenditure to 2.5% without any indication of when that expenditure might come about. The Conservatives’ proposal was by the end of the decade. At the moment, we have a commitment to 2.5% and the review seems to assume a trajectory, but what is the timeframe for that trajectory? As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, just reminded the Grand Committee, this report is going not just to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for Defence but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She may have a passionate interest in defence. She may, for all I know, have particular defence interests and expertise that mean sending this review to her is entirely appropriate from a defence of the realm perspective. But it seems to send a signal that one of the key issues will be keeping to the cap, limit or trajectory of 2.5%. Could the Minister reassure the Grand Committee that 2.5% is not a vague aspiration to come about when the economy has somehow been transformed and when the Government have created growth, but something for which we can have a clear timeline?

Why does that matter? It is because, if we believe that we need to look at the size of our Armed Forces, as so many noble Lords have pointed out, at the size of our reserves, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, pointed out, or at the size of our Army—the Liberal Democrats have repeatedly said that we need to increase its size again—we must improve our recruitment, ideally by bringing it back in-house.

My neighbour—geographically, both this evening and in Cambridge—the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, pointed out that there are questions about recruitment which really need to be looked at. Whether we have outsourced it or are seeking to recruit directly through the services, people need to know what the training budget is. They need to know that we have the accommodation in the right place to bring in additional recruits. Do we have that?

There are clearly questions and propositions in the review which talk about the size of the defence estate and refer to forces accommodation but, without some certainty about expenditure, will His Majesty’s Government be able to make the commitments that we need to improve forces accommodation and the conditions for service personnel? Then, recruiters will genuinely be able to say to people, “Come and work for us. You’re not just doing it because it’s important for your country—we will actually be good employers as well”. That is hugely important to recruiting our service personnel.

In terms of industry, one of the suggestions is that the defence review should be looking to the British economy and to growth. Clearly, the defence industrial base is hugely important but, if we are going to let defence contracts for the security of the realm or need to procure for increasing interoperability with our allies, industry needs certainty. The idea that, at some future date, we will be spending more of our GDP on defence is not sufficient. Businesses need to know that the contracts are coming and that His Majesty’s Government will actually pay.

Defence expenditure needs to be particularly secure in terms not of the primes as much as the sub-primes of the small and medium-sized enterprises. Can we really be reassured that 2.5% is going to happen, whether or not we think that 3%—as some noble Lords think—is necessary? That is not my party’s policy, and is clearly a question for another day, but some degree of certainty is hugely important.

Finally on how the United Kingdom works, whether we are going to be a regional or global player has clearly got to be with our allies. In the north Atlantic area, are we also saying that we should play a role in the High North with our NATO partners? Picking up on the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, about the polar regions, the High North is hugely important, but we are technically a neighbour. We have a role with the Antarctic. Are His Majesty’s Government concerned about the polar regions?

Finally, language, words and commitments matter. Just as your Lordships’ House is almost unanimous on supporting Ukraine, because Ukraine’s war is our war, so too are we certain about the importance of supporting our overseas territories. The Foreign Secretary made reassurances to Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands a couple of days ago, but the fact remains that there could again be speculation about the future of the Falklands. What went wrong in the 1980s was that John Nott suggested to the Argentinians that, actually, the Falklands did not matter. Not only do we need a strategic review, but we need to be sure where our commitments are. We need to ensure that everyone—Ministers included—is singing from the same hymn sheet and making clear our commitments to our overseas territories, as well as on our domestic security, and working with our allies to deliver as far as possible.

King’s Speech

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, there has been a significant amount of change in your Lordships’ House since the election. Clearly, the caterers have changed sides, and the consumers have obviously decided that the menu from the Labour Party was a little more attractive than that of the Conservatives. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has looked at the menu and responded. From these Benches—where we have not changed places, either physically, since we have not moved across the Chamber, or in our portfolios—I wonder if our role is to be here as restaurant critics considering what the new Government are offering compared with what their predecessor offered. In that sense, I find myself in a slightly odd position. One of the things that was always a great pleasure from these Benches was the extent to which, when the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was Minister of State, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, now the Minister of State, was sitting on the Labour Benches, the three of us would agree very strongly on many issues associated with defence. Just as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said at the end of her remarks, that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will support His Majesty’s Government on matters of state associated with defence and in the national interest, so too will we from these Benches.

However, I was not proposing to speak about menus; I was proposing to speak predominantly about defence. Although we have many speakers from these Benches on the Motion for an humble Address today, I suspect that my colleagues will be speaking predominantly on the foreign affairs aspect, so I will focus predominantly on defence. Clearly, we cannot consider defence in isolation—against whom are we protecting ourselves? I want to talk primarily about the defence review and a certain set of defence issues that have perhaps been underplayed so far this morning.

I have already welcomed the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to his place in a Question earlier in the week, but I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, to her place. She is the spokesperson in His Majesty’s Government for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but one of the things that she omitted, rather humbly, to mention this morning is her great commitment to defence. It is a real pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson.

I note how committed the new Government are to defence. It was almost the first thing that was mentioned in the gracious Speech. In opening, His Majesty said that his Government’s legislative programme will be “mission led”—I am not quite sure which missions we are talking about—

“based upon the principles of security, fairness and opportunity for all”.

The security of the realm is the first duty of the state. It is welcome that His Majesty’s Government have made a commitment to increased defence expenditure. One area that I touched on already this morning, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is a path towards 2.5%. The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, has said that a clear path will be indicated. However, if the new defence review is to consider not just the challenges of the last decade but of the next decade, and given that we have a new Chief of the General Staff who is talking about the need to prepare for war, is 2.5% going to be enough?

There is always a danger in using percentages, and saying that we aspire to 2% or 2.5%. Should His Majesty’s Government be looking at percentages, or have the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and the rest of the team been offered the opportunity to fundamentally review the challenges? Are Russia, China, Iran and North Korea perhaps acting as an axis? Do we need to consider whether 2.5% is right? Will the MoD be willing to challenge the Chancellor if this review finds that defence expenditure needs to be higher? The challenges are so significant, and I am sure my colleagues will talk about many of the foreign policy challenges that we need to be considering.

I do not really believe in percentages, but as a quick aside, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, gave a commitment to increase the expenditure on development aid back to 0.7% when the financial circumstances permitted. I thought that was the policy of the outgoing Government. What is the position of the current Government? Will that happen only when the fiscal circumstances allow, or could we potentially have a timeline for that?

The defence review is clearly very important, and it is important that we do not pre-empt its outcome. At the same time, we have already heard about the commitment to GCAP, about which we will be talking again on Monday. There are also commitments to AUKUS. It is surely vital that we do two things, as a country, and as His Majesty’s Government. One is to make sure that we keep our allies fully abreast of what is being done in defence and foreign policy co-operation, so that nobody is blindsided by the outcome of the defence review. That applies to GCAP and to AUKUS. It would be very helpful if the Minister could tell the House about some of those discussions. It is also important that we talk to the defence industrial base. The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, has already mentioned that. We need to talk to suppliers—not just the primes but also the subprimes. Could the Minister tell the House what commitments the Government can give to SMEs in the defence sector, particularly those that are led by veterans? If they are bidding for contracts, one of the key things they need is a degree of certainty.

Finally, the only bit of the gracious Speech that talked about legislation in defence was about the Armed Forces commissioner. That is clearly a very welcome post, but it is also part of the wider issues that His Majesty’s Government are going to have to take in hand. These include how far the Government are going to be able to improve recruitment and retention, and Armed Forces accommodation, and make sure that we do the right thing by our service personnel, veterans and their families, because we all owe them a huge debt of gratitude. There are many questions for the Minister, but we wish him well.